Jay began this 2nd part of his talk with Al fadi by delving into the controversies surrounding Muhammad's existence in the 7th century. He, and Al Fadi have both been looking at the name MHMD with Mel from Ireland, who has been cooperating with the European scholar A.J. Deuce.
It would be good to remind ourselves that in ancient Hebrew and Arabic there are no written vowels, so that this name would have been written with only the four consonants MHMD during the 7th century.
Jay, employing Mel's arguments, began by stating that the name 'MHMD' in the 7th century was in fact just a title, and a popular one as well.
This title was first introduced in Ugaritic in 1400 BC as a title which meant: "The Praised One", or "The glorified One".
In 1000 BC it was used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to Solomon as "Altogether Lovely" in Song of Solomon 5:16, and this same name used 10 other times throughout the Old Testament, so it was a familiar title for the Jews.
In 397 AD Saint Ambrose took that same title MHMD and in Syriac used it to refer to Jesus Christ Himself, as the "praised one". From the 4th century on it was used by Syriac speaking Christians to refer to Jesus.
By the 7th century this title MHMD was employed by the Jews to refer to the Messiah who was yet to come, and by the Christians to refer to the 2nd coming Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Yet, there were numerous times that this name or title was employed by Christians in the 7th century? Were they not all referring to the Muhammad of Arabia, the Muslim Muhammad?
The answer is that there are really only 5 instances where Christians used this title. Let's look at each individually:
1) 634 AD: Thomas the Presbyter states that "a battle happened between the Romans and the ‘Tayaye d-Mhmt’ in Gaza". Note that the spelling "Mhmt" is a Pahlavi spelling, from what is today Iraq, and the Tayaye were Lakhmids who were also from Iraq. But they were fighting in Gaza. The Muslim Muhammad never went to Gaza and didn't come from Iraq. So, this was another Muhammad.
2) 636 AD: A flyleaf refers to the “Arabs of "Mhmd” who killed many Syrians in Yarmuk" (or Gabitha). In the 7th century the Arabs all lived in what is today Jordan and Syria, while the Muslim Muhammad never killed any Syrians and certainly never went to Yarmuk which is too far north, in Syria.
3) 660s AD: Sebeos refers to “an Ishmaelite called Mahmet…who fought with 12,000 Israelites”. There is no record of 12,000 Arabs partnering with Jews and invading Byzantium in the 7th century, so what Sebeos wrote is simply not historical.
4) 690 AD: John bar Penkaye mentions “Muhammad…teacher/leader of the Arabs”. This is the first real good reference, but much too late, and still too far north, while there are nothing about Islam here, or of him being a Muslim.
5) 730 AD: John of Damascus refers to ”Mahmed, with ludicrous doctrines…” But then mentions that this Muhammad had 4 books, including the book of the cow (S.2), the women (S.4), the table (S.5), & the camel (S. nothing). This Muhammad is called an "Ishmaelite" by John, and his four books are not the Qur'an of today, suggesting that even as late as 100 years after the Muslim Muhammad died, this Muhammad is not the right one.
In conclusion, we note that every reference to a "Muhammad in the 7th century" places him in Gaza, or in Jerusalem, or Damascus, or even in Hira (near Baghdad), which are ALL situated too far north, so, more-than-likely are referring to other Muhammads, who were “the praised one”, and possibly even Jesus Christ.
Jay then was confronted live by a certain well known Muslim blogger named Farid who said Jay had been defeated by Mansur Ahmed, so Jay described what really did happen between he and Mansur Ahmed in a the debate they had on May 26th, 2019, at Speaker’s Corner.
Mansur claimed that the "Muslims had a continual Textual Tradition of a complete Qur’anic Manuscript back to Uthman", from 652 AD. Yet, when Jay challenged him to name one manuscript of this early Qur'an he could not name one from 652 AD, nor from 699 AD, nor even from before 721 AD, which is well into the 8th century.
When he claimed that Muslims had 97% of the Qur'an by 719 AD, Jay shut that down by showing that he was only referring to 63 fragments which they put together to get the 97% they needed. Yet, what they didn't know was of the 63 fragments they offered, 20 of them are tentatively dated, with disagreements between scholars, 9 of them are dated after 719 AD, and 34 of them; thus, over half of them, we have no way of knowing…so, it’s pure speculation by the Muslims!
In conclusion: None of the 63 fragments are really valid, since all of them are either too late, or tentatively dated, or have no supporting evidence!
As to the early Traditional writings, Jay stated that in a few weeks he was going to shut down that argument completely, so hold this space!
© Pfander Centre for Apologetics & Polemics - US, March 15, 2024
(103,740)
14 мар 2024
